11 Of The Dwarves' Actors From "The Hobbit" (taken At An Advanced Screening Of The Movie)

11 of the dwarves' actors from "The Hobbit" (taken at an advanced screening of the movie)

Favorite TV Series: "Futurama"

This is my absolute favorite TV show of all time. While I will admit that there may be shows out there that are better written or more refined, this show is just perfect to me. I first discovered this show during its time on Adult Swim. On a side note, I love Adult Swim. Anyway, I first saw the episode "The Sting", and, while the randomness and general instability of the episode did freak me out a bit, I was totally hooked. While I was bummed that the series had already been cancelled, I made it my mission to watch every single episode that had been made. That goal was accomplished fairly quickly considering how obsessed I was, and the last episode I watched was the actual last episode of the series, "The Devil's Hands Are Idle Playthings". While I do really like the way that they ended the series with that episode, the fact that the series was over still made me kind of upset. Needless to say, I was unspeakably happy when they brought this series back. I thought "Bender's Big Score" was great. The other three movies, on the other hand, were a mixed bag. I thought the weakest was "Bender's Game". The plot was convoluted and didn't make a whole lot of sense. That's not to say it was bad (even the worst episodes of "Futurama" are better than good episodes of other shows), it just wasn't my favorite. After being brought back, I personally think the series is just as good as it's ever been. It took a few episodes to get back in the groove, but I really do like the new episodes. The only difference is that these do not have the nostalgic value that the old ones do. My favorite thing about this show, besides the smart and witty writing, is the characters. Zoidberg and Fry are my personal favorites (though I do concede that episodes centered around Zoidberg tend to be below average). Another thing that I love about this show is that it has actually formed its own mythology. It has a consistent history and universe that it inhabits. While the episodes are largely...episodic, there are almost constant references back and forward to other adventures that the Planet Express crew has been on. I absolutely love everything about this show. I hope this time it stays on for as long as it deserves (which might just be forever). 

State Of Mind: "'Smash': Its Rocky First Season And Its Bright Future"

"Fade in on a girl with a hunger for fame and a face and a name to remember." So begins one of the most thrilling show tunes in recent memory. Interestingly enough, it's not from a musical, at least not one on Broadway. It's from "Smash", one of the best shows to premiere in recent memory.

"Smash" is about "Marilyn: The Musical", a fictional Broadway musical about the life and hardships of legendary actress and sex symbol Marilyn Monroe. More specifically, the show details the production end of the musical, from its inception to its casting to rehearsals to its premiere in Boston. The two main characters are Ivy Lynn, a veteran Broadway actress who's ready to sink her teeth into a leading role, and Karen Cartwright, a newcomer who the production team believes may have the chops to star in the show despite her inexperience. Other leads include Julia Houston and Tom Levitt, the show's book writer and composer, Derek Wills, the show's director, and Eileen Rand, the show's producer. The show follows these characters and their hardships as they try to cobble together a show in a unusually short amount of time.

The show's pilot was one of the most critically-acclaimed premieres for a show that I've ever seen, but critical and fan opinion of the show turned sour unbelievably quickly. People thought that the show became too focused on the personal lives of the characters as opposed to on the show. They also thought that the show was too reliant on viewers feeling a certain way and attaching themselves to certain characters. Many people jumped ship as the show decreased in quality. Why do I still watch it then? Why did it get so "bad"? How can they fix it for the now guaranteed second season?

I love this show, even if the pilot was the best episode thus far. The critics are right, though, it is at its best when it's focusing on the musical and its production. Anyone who read my ramblings on "Glee" know that I thought the first thirteen episodes were near perfection, while the rest of the first season was very good, but not quite as good. For "Smash", the first two episodes were "Glee"'s first thirteen, while the first seasons of these two shows as a whole matched up pretty well. The first two episodes of "Smash" focused on the casting of Marilyn Monroe in the musical and made clear the show's focus before it got muddled in personal stories and unimportant side characters. Ivy's cover of "Crazy Dreams" was the perfect capstone to that perfect little arc, with Ivy' s years as a chorus girl paying off and Karen realizing that she still has a ways to go before she gets her chance to shine. It was a fitting end, so what happened?

I was hyped about the third episode. However, that was when the show started getting kinda soap opera-y. New love interests and affairs came rapidly into play. No couple was safe, no matter how stable they had been up to that point. As the season went on, I began to wonder if I had accidentally switched to "Desperate Housewives" with musical numbers. Ironically, plot lines like these are exactly the reason that I've never watched "Desperate Housewives" and shows like it. Therefore, there must have been something special there that kept me watching despite the increasingly ridiculous story lines. I think I can pinpoint, at least for me, the reasons why I kept watching.

The first is the premise. I love Broadway, particularly musicals. To see a show that was this knowledgeable and true to its Broadway roots was like a dream come true.  It was like "Glee" before it sold out and began doing hit songs almost exclusively. It was completely and unabashedly about Broadway, and it consistently contained show tunes (both original and well-known), Broadway actors, and theater references. I love the world that "Smash" puts a spotlight on.

The second is, interestingly enough, the characters. As much as people say that the characters are random and inconsistent, I've found the characters (or at least the performances of the actors portraying them) to be engaging. It's rare that shows elicit as much of a reaction from me as this show does, and I believe that the characters and their actions play a large part in that. Ivy Lynn, no matter what the writers make her do, will always be my favorite character on the show. I think she really does make the better Marilyn, and Megan Hilty deserves an Emmy nomination (at least) for her amazing performance. On the other hand, there's Karen, played by Katherine McPhee. I've liked her a lot more than I thought she would. Even if her character isn't as complex as Ivy, she's still talented and a surprisingly good Marilyn, even if her incorrect body type and pop voice kind of kill the image for me. I love Tom (Christian Borle), Julia (Debra Messing), and their relationship, even if I could do without the intense focus on Julia's love affairs and home life. I even love Derek and Eileen, despite their opposing personalities and apparent divisiveness among the fanbase.

The third, and possibly the most important, is the moments of sheer imagination and awesomeness that shine through the occasional murkiness. The original musical numbers are almost always bright spots, with songs like "Let Me Be Your Star", "Let's Be Bad", "The 20th Century Fox Mambo", "On Lexington and 52nd Street", "Second Hand White Baby Grand", and "Don't Forget Me" being constantly repeated on my iPod. There are also character moments and rehearsal and production scenes that prove that this show has the potential to be the most compelling thing on TV. The show is just too bogged down with the relationships and the personal lives of the characters.

I think the main problem with the show are these personal stories. I understand that personal stories are important and that most of the character dimension and development coming from these subplots, but it was getting kind of ridiculous. I also get some people may want to see what happens in the personal lives of these characters. That's fine, and I admit that I did find myself becoming invested in some of these subplots. It's just that the show got  bit carried away. As the side stories became more and more outlandish, I found myself caring less and less. The show's supposed to be a realistic backstage drama, so realism is key. I don't mind the personal stuff, but they just need to bring it back down to Earth a bit. There is a such thing as a stable relationship, and not everybody sleeps with everybody else.

The show was written and filmed before the first episode aired, so the writers couldn't change anything based on fan reactions and backlash. Therefore, the writers were writing based on assumptions about what viewers would want to see and which characters they would like or be interested in. Ellis was obviously written as the villain viewers would love to hate, but everyone just ended up loathing every second he was on the screen. The writers also assumed that the we would be more interested in Julia's home life than "Bombshell" itself.

Possibly the most egregious error they made, though, was assuming that everyone would be on Karen's side. While it is true that a large portion of viewers did side with Karen for various reasons, a huge part of the fanbase was immovably in Ivy's corner, myself included. This wouldn't have been so bad if the writers had been a bit more subtle, but it was clear from the very beginning that the writer's loved Karen and didn't care much for Ivy. This left viewers with scenes full of characters applauding Karen's unbelievable talent and perfection while Ivy became crazier and more cartoonishly evil with every passing episode. I think the writers actually ended up achieving that exact opposite of what they set out to do. By giving Ivy the short end of the stick in almost every situation, she quickly became a Woobie, and people began feeling sorry for her instead of hating her. Here's a woman who's struggled for her entire life to get where she is today. She's been overshadowed by other, and she has an overbearing mother. Here comes her one chance at the starring role she's waited her entire career for. She even gets the part at first, only to have it ripped away from her by the total newbie who hasn't paid her dues in the business yet. Now, don't get me wrong. I like Katherine McPhee. She has an amazing voice, and she's very pretty. However, I know that even some of her fans admit that she's just not right for Marilyn. She's too tall and thin, and her voice is too "pop". She'd do better in either a different musical or as a pop star. I want success for Karen; I just don't think this musical is a good fit for her.

The news recently came out that certain characters, including Ellis, Frank (Julia's husband), Dev (Karen's boyfriend), and Michael (Julia's lover), will not be returning next season. Personally, I think this is a good omen. Hopefully, this means that the writers are listening to the fans and that there will be more "Bombshell" and fewer personal stories next season. I know that I'll be watching this show until it gets cancelled, even if the second season still has its flaws.

"Smash", you already are my star.

A Review: The 2012 "Les Miserables" Film

As a huge fan of musical theater, I think it goes without saying that I was extremely excited for the new "Les Miserables" movie. The closer the release date came, the more excited I got. Even if some of the reviews and production choices made me a bit wary, I was still hopeful that this movie would rock. So, did it?

"Les Miserables", based on the musical of the same name based on the Victor Hugo novel of the same name, follows Jean Valjean, a convict who reforms his ways to become a wealthy man and mayor of a town in France. He is followed by Inspector Javert, a policeman who believes that a criminal can never truly change their ways. The movie/musical/book follows their exploits, the people whose lives these two affect, and the growth (or lack thereof) that these men go through. This is all set against the backdrop of a student revolution occurring in France at the time.

One of the most eye-catching things about this movie is the huge cast made up almost completely of big name actors. Jean Valjean is played by Hugh Jackman. Valjean is a famously difficult role to play, both in terms of acting and singing. Jackman does fine in the film, but not quite as well as I was expecting. His singing is oddly annoying, though he does a good job of nailing the more difficult songs (I was impressed by his renditions of "Valjean's Soliloquy" and "Who Am I?"). His acting is very good, if a bit overwrought at times. He’ll probably get nominated for an Oscar (he does an obscene amount of crying in this role), but I don’t think he’ll win. He definitely wasn’t my favorite performance in this movie.

Anne Hathaway plays Fantine, the endlessly unlucky single mother of a girl that ends up being adopted by Valjean. She plays the part for all its worth, making the most of her rather meager screen time. Her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" is simultaneously heartbreaking and well-acted. Her singing is also very good (well, as good as possible considering that she's sobbing her way through every song). This will probably go down as one of the defining performances in this role, and I predict that an Oscar will soon be in the hands of Ms. Hathaway.

Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play the Thenardiers, the opportunistic couple that takes in Fantine’s daughter. These two are delightful. They are a joy to watch whenever they are onscreen. Most of their despicable antics are played for laughs, and it almost always works. Some may take issue with the fact that the Thenardiers are portrayed as villainously as they sometimes are in other productions. I, on the other hand, think that “Les Miserables” can use any comic relief it can get, as long as it works as well as it does here. I welcome the Thenardiers both as villains and as clowns.

Eddie Redmayne plays Marius, a rich schoolboy who renounces his wealth to join the revolutionaries. Marius isn’t the most interesting characters, defined mostly (if not entirely) by his renouncement of his wealth, his position as a revolutionary, and his love for Cosette. Redmayne does well with what he is given, however. He gives Marius a kind of wide-eyed idealism and naivete that at least begins to get at a bit of a characterization. His performance of “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables” is affecting and very well-performed. I was surprised by how well Redmayne sang. However, he does sometimes sound as though he’s trying to force an operatic voice that is only sometimes there. Other times, he ends up sounding a bit like Kermit the Frog. He also does this thing where he shakes his head when he vibratos. It’s probably just me, but it bugged me when he did that during songs like “Red and Black”. Overall, though, he takes a character that can very easily be flat and boring and makes him interesting and a pleasure to watch.

Amanda Seyfried plays Cosette. If Marius has a bland character, Cosette has no character at all. Serving as more of a symbol of love than a character, Cosette is defined almost completely by her love of Marius (and, to a much lesser extent, Valjean). Seyfriend does her best with the very little she is given to do. She acts the part fine, but she’s not onscreen for much longer than Hathaway, and she’s has much less to work with. She doesn’t quite have the voice for Cosette, either. This is one of the ultimate soprano roles in musical theater. Seyfried sounds fine, but she’s not powerful enough. She lightly chirps and trills her way through the score like a songbird, but she tends to get drowned out when other people are singing with her. It doesn’t sound bad, but it doesn’t sound great either. Seyfried does a fine job, but her limited screen time and character mean that she doesn’t really stand out.

Samantha Barks plays Eponine, the daughter of the Thenardiers who is hopelessly (and one-sidedly) in love with Marius. As one of the lesser known stars in the film, Barks was picked because she had played this role numerous times before. It shows. She has this role down. She perfectly portrays Eponine’s coy friendship with Marius and her hopeless and unrequited devotion to him. Her singing is pretty, and her acting is superb. She probably understands her character the most out of anyone in the film, and turns in great, layered work because of it. It may not be the showiest role in the film, but I personally enjoyed this performance the most.

Aaron Tveit plays Enjolras, the leader of the revolutionaries. In the right hands and in the right production, Enjolras can be a real scene stealer (for proof, see the 25th anniversary concert). However, he isn’t given a lot of screentime in this production. With more things to do, I think that Tveit could have been great in this role (I know he’s capable of great things), but this movie somewhat shortchanges Enjolras. He does fine with what he has, but he’s generally unmemorable. I understand that things had to be cut for time’s sake (especially with a story as long and packed as “Les Miserables”), but it’s still a shame.

Russell Crowe plays Javert. This was almost definitely the most divisive casting choice of them all. In the end, I didn’t hate him in the role. He’s definitely the weakest singer, always sounding as though his mouth is full of cotton balls. His acting is fine, I guess, but I’ve seen Javerts that imbue him with so much more emotion, presence, and power (once again, see the 25th anniversary concert) that I was disappointed. Personally, I didn’t think that he ruined the movie or anything, but I do think that there were better casting choices that could have been made. Honestly, I liked him more than I thought I would. It does bear mentioning, though, that his renditions of Javert’s two big solos (“Stars” and “Javert’s Suicide”) are quite weak, especially when compared to the other major solos in the movie.

This movie is great to look at. The film’s main aesthetic goal was obviously to combine grand and grimy. The film succeeds in its pursuit of planned ugliness, making its cast decidedly unappealing, as they sing covered in layers of filth, blood, tears, and, at one point, literal crap. It’s an effective device to hammer home the destitution, poverty, and hopelessness of these people. These aesthetic choices also extend to the singing, in which acting and emotion is valued over sounding pretty. Almost everyone sings while crying, so pitch and lyrics are sometimes sacrificed in favor of dramatic line readings and sobs. It doesn’t sound bad, and some of the actors still manage to sound fine, but it does make listening to the music without the visual of the person acting a bit awkward. I still think that that was the right choice to make, though, considering the needs of a film versus the needs of a stage musical.

Another thing that has been quite divisive was the direction of Tom Hooper. For this film, he seemed to have two shots in his repertoire: extremely long close-ups and extremely shorts and scattered shots. The long close-ups are reserved for major solos (“I Dreamed a Dream” and most of “Valjean’s Soliloquy” are done in one continuous shot), while the short and scattered shots are meant for crowd scenes (Hooper’s goal during “At the End of the Day” seemed to be to give each citizen of France their own two millisecond close-up). It’s not terrible, but it can be, at different times, both boring and distracting. The longer shots sometimes go on too long, and the staging for them can be awkward. The shorter shots tend to be all over the place, to the point that I was sometimes confused as to what was supposed to be going on in the 27 shots that occupied the last two seconds of screen time. Some shots are great (my personal favorite is the slow motion shot of furniture falling out of windows to form the barricade), but too many are redundant or distracting. I wish that we had just gotten a bit more room in some of the shots (the aerial and panoramic shots that we do get are great, particularly when it comes to the finale) and a bit more time to breathe (Fantine dies, and, a second later, Javert has teleported into the room to kill Valjean). I understand that, with this material, there’s a lot of ground to cover in not a lot of time, but I think a few more establishing shots and couple more seconds for emotional beats would’ve done this movie some good. Once again, the direction isn’t terrible, but it is very flawed. Good direction should inform and add to what happening onscreen, not distract from it.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It’s not a perfect adaptation (I don’t know if that’s possible with this material), but I think it’s worthy of the “Les Miserables” name and legacy. There are many flaws and perplexing choices, but the good very much outweighs the bad. It is almost guaranteed to be a big player at the Oscars this year and rightfully so. This movie is worth seeing if only for the great cast and outstanding performances. I say go see it, and don’t wait one day more. (Yay! Forced musical theater humor!)

P.S. My favorite numbers were the finale reprise of "Do You Hear the People Sing" and "At the End of the Day" (I really liked the group numbers in this movie).

P.P.S. I know that more casts exist than just the 25th anniversary concert cast, but I really liked their Enjolras and Javert. Also, it's easily used as a reference point because the entire thing is on YouTube. Their Valjean is amazing, too. 

P.P.P.S. I wasn't crazy about the new song. In a movie that already felt like it had a lot to get through, the new song felt unnecessary and obviously put there to give the movie a shot at the Best Original Song Oscar. 

Underappreciated Musical: "Lysistrata Jones"

Here's a musical that never really stood a chance. Even after seeing it and seeing how amazing it was, I knew that it was not meant to last long. If there's a definition of "Too Good To Last" in the dictionary, "Lysistrata Jones" is the picture next to that definition.

I wasn't really interested in seeing the show, as weren't most people. However, I got a discount that allowed me to see the show with three friends for $5 per ticket. I decided it was too good of a deal to pass up, so I went. I soon realized that the show would've been worth full price.

"Lysistrata Jones" follows the Athens University basketball team. They haven't won a game in the last 30 years, and they seem content enough to not even try to change that. In comes Lysistrata Jones, a peppy blonde who forms a cheerleading team in an attempt to get the basketball team to win. When they continue losing, Lyssie J. gets the idea (from the SparkNotes version of "Lysistrata") to get the girlfriends of the basketball players to withhold sex from them until they win a game. Great songs and a copious amount of hilarity ensues.

"Lysistrata Jones" takes the usual high school and college movie tropes and flips them around. Some of the opening couples end up together, while others don't. Every character (with the exception of two) grow past their usual stereotypes to become full and interesting characters. There's a reason that this show got nominated for the Tony Award for Best Book of a Musical. It's as hilarious as it is heartfelt. You can tell that this was a pet project of the writers and that the actors really did enjoy themselves every second of the way. It has "little show that could" written all over it, and I wish more people could've seen that.

The score is an impressive mix of song styles. Most of the music is somewhat pop-ish, but there's traces of R&B and Latin in there, too. Pretty much every song is good and memorable, though the best two, by far, are "No More Giving It Up" and the amazing Act I finale "Where Am I Now". There was maybe one or two songs that dragged on a bit, but most became better as they went on, which can be hard to do.

The cast was incredible. Patti Murin was energetic and likable as Lyssie J. Lindsay Nicole Chambers was very funny offbeat as Lyssie's slam poem-spouting friend Robin. Arguably the best, however, was Liz Mikel as the narrator muse Hetaira. Her voice was amazing and her comic timing was perfect. She literally had the entire house on the floor with some of her line readings, particularly when she was a prostitute (it's a long story). The rest of the cast is talented and play their parts well. It also bears mentioning, considering that everyone gets almost naked at some point, that the entire cast is very attractive and all have amazing bodies.

This show had it all: a funny book, a great score, a talented cast, and fast-paced and impressive choreography. So, why didn't it last? Well, there's a few possible reasons. First off, there was no precedent for it. It wasn't an adaptation (well, technically it was, but not really), and it didn't have a big name attached. It was also a rather small show. Small shows can do well on Broadway (see "Avenue Q" and "25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee"), but it tends to be a rare occurrence. There's also the fact that it was very modern. While this isn't necessarily a detriment, the audience tends to be a bit older for Broadway shows. It also doesn't help that jokes about current events and iPhones won't be funny forever. The iPhone jokes were even used as plot points, so they couldn't even be written out. That means that it runs the risk of not having lasting appeal, which can hurt a show even in the short-run.

I think this show has the potential to continue to pull people in. Sometimes, the "little show that could" that made it to Broadway against all odds after a long time and many different locations and productions can build up an impressive fanbase even after closing. I think that the show is quirky and good enough that, despite it's short run, it will become a cult theater hit, like "Carrie: The Musical" and "[title of show]". I know that I will be firmly in that cult, and I'm so glad that it's getting a cast recording. I believe in your magnetic power, "Lysistrata Jones". Hold on, and don't give it up.